154x Filetype PDF File size 0.25 MB Source: www.jud.ct.gov
Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2000-2022, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2022 Edition Cohabitation Agreements in Connecticut A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1: Validity ............................................................................................ 4 Section 2: Grounds........................................................................................... 7 Section 2a: Expressed or Implied Contract .......................................................... 8 Table 1: Proof of Existence, Terms, And Breach, or Lack Thereof, of Oral Contract to Convey Property between Unmarried Cohabitants ....................................... 11 Table 2: Proof of Existence and Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract for Services . 11 Section 2b: Implied Partnership Agreement or Joint Venture ............................... 12 Table 3: Proof of Existence and Breach of Joint Venture Regarding Real Property 14 Table 4: Proof of Existence and Breach of Implied Partnership Agreement between Unmarried Cohabitants ................................................................................ 14 Section 3: Form and Content ........................................................................... 15 Table 5: Sample Clauses for Cohabitation Agreements .................................... 17 Section 4: Remedies & Enforcement ................................................................. 20 Section 4a: Quantum Meruit ............................................................................ 22 Table 6: Constructive Trust .......................................................................... 25 Table 7: Resulting Trust ............................................................................... 26 Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit lawlibrarians@jud.ct.gov Cohabitation - 1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and currency of any resource cited in this research guide. View our other research guides at https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project. The online versions are for informational purposes only. References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these databases. Remote access is not available. Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm Cohabitation - 2 Introduction A Guide to Resources in the Law Library • “Connecticut does not presently recognize, as valid marriages, living arrangements or informal commitments entered into in this state and loosely categorized as common law marriages. McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 285, 334 A.2d 437 (1973); Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 593, 316 A.2d 379 (1972); State ex rel. Felson v. Allen, 129 Conn. 427, 432, 29 A.2d 306 (1942). Only recently this rule of law has been reaffirmed. ‘In this jurisdiction, common law marriages are not accorded validity. . . . The rights and obligations that attend a valid marriage simply do not arise where the parties choose to cohabit outside the marital relationship.’ (Citations omitted.) Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 339, 521 A.2d 142 (1987).” Collier v. Milford, 206 Conn. 242, 248, 537 A.2d 474, 477 (1988). • “. . .the plaintiff cites the definition, adopted by our Supreme Court in Wolk v. Wolk, 191 Conn. 328, 332, 464 A.2d 780 (1983), that ‘[c]ohabitation is a dwelling together of man and woman in the same place in the manner of husband and wife.’ The plaintiff apparently interprets the phrase ‘in the manner of husband and wife’ to suggest that cohabitation is for all intents and purposes synonymous with marriage, and that cohabitation raises all of the same presumptions regarding the treatment of assets as does marriage. Such an interpretation, however, would essentially transform cohabitation into common- law marriage, contrary to the refusal of this state to recognize such relationships. See McAnerney v. McAnerney, 165 Conn. 277, 285, 334 A.2d 437 (1973) (‘[a]lthough other jurisdictions may recognize common-law marriage or accord legal consequences to informal marriage relationships, Connecticut definitely does not. . . . It follows that although two persons cohabit and conduct themselves as a married couple, our law neither grants to nor imposes upon them marital status’ [citations omitted]).” Herring v. Daniels, 70 Conn. App. 649, 655, 805 A.2d 718, 722-723 (2002). • “. . .cohabitation in and of itself does not create any legal or support obligations.” Loughlin v. Loughlin, 280 Conn. 632, 643, 910 A.2d 963, 972 (2006). Cohabitation - 3 Section 1: Validity A Guide to Resources in the Law Library SCOPE: Bibliographic resources relating to the validity of unmarried cohabitation agreements in Connecticut. DEFINITIONS: • “. . .our public policy does not prevent the enforcement of agreements regarding property rights between unmarried cohabitants in a sexual relationship.” Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 342, 521 A.2d 142, 146 (1987). • “Contracts expressly providing for the performance of sexual acts, of course, have been characterized as meretricious and held unenforceable as violative of public policy.” Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 339, 521 A.2d 142, 145 (1987). SEE ALSO: • Section 4a: Quantum Meruit CASES: CONNECTICUT Once you have • Weicker v. Granatowski, Superior Court, Judicial District of identified useful Fairfield at Bridgeport, No. 398167 (September 2, 2003) cases, it is important (35 Conn. L. Rptr. 333) (2003 Conn. Super. Lexis 2381) to update the cases (2003 WL 22133810). “What is left is that the parties before you rely on them. Updating case carried on a platonic relationship while living in the law means checking Guilford home for two years. . . . the court does not find to see if the cases probable cause that the parties expressly or implicitly are still good law. agreed that the plaintiff would have an interest in the You can contact your local law librarian to Guilford property, nor can the court divine an equitable learn about the tools basis for such an interest. Even if the court were to find available to you to that the parties carried on a romantic relationship while in update cases. the Guilford home, as observed supra, ‘cohabitation alone does not create any contractual relationship or. . . . impose other legal duties upon the parties.’ Boland v. Catalano, supra 202 Conn. at 339.” • Herring v. Daniels, 70 Conn. App. 649, 656, 805 A.2d 718, 723 (2002). “[W]here the parties have established an unmarried, cohabiting relationship, it is the specific conduct of the parties within that relationship that determines their respective rights and obligations, including the treatment of their individual property.” • Boland v. Catalano, 202 Conn. 333, 339, 521 A.2d 142, 145 (1987). “. . .cohabitation alone does not create any contractual relationship or, unlike marriage, impose any other legal duties upon the parties. . . . Ordinary contract principles are not suspended. . . . for unmarried persons living together, whether or not they engage in sexual activity.” Cohabitation - 4
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.